Even without engines you could solve it simply by searching with google for the fen

That's cheating.

It's like saying "you could beat Zenmastur by contacting someone with big hardware that sees how 1...f5 wins and just ask them to relay you the moves." Sure I could! I know people, that'd be no problem.

But what would be the point?

<snip>

Since apparently jp has been waiting for a position that cracks me like this one, I just brought this from the past to save his time. It already happened. It's done.

I haven't been waiting for a position that cracks you, because there have been numerous positions shown already that have cracked you. You just excuse those failures with bizarre non-arguments like "It was not a game".

Many examples come from TB positions. The argument you sometimes used, "I would look up the TB", is terrible, or in the words you use above "That's cheating... What would be the point?"

The point of using a TB position, as many of us have said many times, is that we know what the correct answer is and therefore can use it with certainty to test ourselves, our engines, the CC combination of ourselves and engines, etc. It's obvious that if <=7 men can pose these problems then >7 men will pose even harder problems.

Even without engines you could solve it simply by searching with google for the fen

That's cheating.

It's like saying "you could beat Zenmastur by contacting someone with big hardware that sees how 1...f5 wins and just ask them to relay you the moves." Sure I could! I know people, that'd be no problem.

But what would be the point?

<snip>

Since apparently jp has been waiting for a position that cracks me like this one, I just brought this from the past to save his time. It already happened. It's done.

I haven't been waiting for a position that cracks you, because there have been numerous positions shown already that have cracked you. You just excuse those failures with bizarre non-arguments like "It was not a game".

Many examples come from TB positions. The argument you sometimes used, "I would look up the TB", is terrible, or in the words you use above "That's cheating... What would be the point?"

The point of using a TB position, as many of us have said many times, is that we know what the correct answer is and therefore can use it with certainty to test ourselves, our engines, the CC combination of ourselves and engines, etc. It's obvious that if <=7 men can pose these problems then >7 men will pose even harder problems.

Rather than revisiting the past, let's just let this game unfold. I continue to believe that the current game will provide a nice test of Ovyron's methodology. My personal belief is that he currently has a winning position, but that quite exact play will be needed to win the game. Let's see what happens!

Rather than revisiting the past, let's just let this game unfold. I continue to believe that the current game will provide a nice test of Ovyron's methodology.

It's possible to talk about many things at the same time. Maybe not during a blitz game, but during a CC game for sure.

"Ovyron's methodology" is not my main interest. I'm interested in chess positions, including the one in the "game" here (it's really a game fragment, right??) and how difficult they are for (all) humans, engines, humans with engines, etc.

Depth 94 is not very deep; suppose Black wins here (hypothetically) by forcing an 11-man position that is a "tablebase win" that requires 77 moves. Would Stockfish see that from the root at depth 94 ply, even with existing tablebases?

If you mean DTZ 77, then no... I predict depth 94 is not nearly enough, and TBs won't help at all.

But I'd like to find out what depth SF does need... which brings me back to the few-piece endgame position I mentioned before. Are any of you with fast hardware interested in testing this? (Zenmastur already said in previous discussion that he cannot compile engine code with modifications.) With the changes, it should not take much time for a fast machine to get to very high depths, because there are so few pieces.

Until someone else shows up, what I'm representing is the ultimate methodology that could be had with my hardware (and hardware as slow) and only 5men tablebases. If I can't win this position, it'd signal nobody under these conditions could win this position. That's my main interest.

That to play correctly in a game you need better hardware. Or not (if what you need is a plan, and I found it.)

I'd be very happy to step aside on future games and let someone with hardware similar show better methodology than me - sadly, all the people that I know like this have retired from correspondence chess, or... they updated their hardware so are no longer interesting...

I'd be very happy to step aside on future games and let someone with hardware similar show better methodology than me - sadly, all the people that I know like this have retired from correspondence chess, or...